Tag Archives: federal court

Copyright Law – Supreme Court to Address Recoverable Costs

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a petition for certiorari in the case styled as Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. in order to address split between the circuits as to the types of “costs” that may be recovered under the Copyright Act. 

As framed by the briefs in the case, Question Presented by the petitioner is: Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs,” 17 U.S.C. § 505, to a prevailing party, is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits, have held, or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held.

Currently, there are three (out of twelve) federal circuit courts of appeal which allow certain costs to be recovered.  Those circuits are the First, the Sixth, and the Ninth.  The federal circuit courts of appeal that do not allow recovery of these costs are the eighth and the eleventh (which controls all cases filed in Florida). 

The result of this decision may change the law in the Eleventh Circuit, as to what costs are recoverable under the Copyright Act.

 

ERIC N. ASSOULINE, ESQ.

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MIAMI ADDRESS

Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131

 Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Copyright, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Uncategorized

SCOTUS ALERT: Trademarks and Bankruptcy

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) granted a petition for certiorari in the case called Mission Product v. Tempnology, in order to hear a case involving trademark law and bankruptcy law.  The issue that is to be heard relates to what happens to a trademark license when the owner of the brand files for bankruptcy.

Currently, the different Circuit Courts of Appeal are not all in agreement as to what should happen.  In certain particular Circuit Courts of Appeal, the licensor that files bankruptcy can use a particular bankruptcy code provision, identified as Section 363 under the Bankruptcy Code, in order to cancel the right of a licensee to use the bankrupt company’s trademark.  However, in certain other Circuit Court’s of Appeal, the courts have been allowing the trademark licensee the right to continue using the bankrupt’s trademark.

The issue is as much a question of trademark law as it is bankruptcy law.  Under the Bankruptcy Code, the law allows a bankrupt the right to accept or reject a contract, wherein both sides still have obligations.  This is known as an executory contract.  However, Section 363 contains an exemption for certain forms of intellectual property, but it currently does not include trademarks.

The two most well-recognized opinions where the courts’ position diverge is the Seventh Circuit and the First Circuit, which is where the Mission Product case is pending.  In essence, the Mission Product appellate court has held that courts should not impose upon a bankrupt the obligation to continue to monitor how its trademark was being used, which goes to the essence and policy of bankruptcy law.

Never a dull moment in intellectual property and bankruptcy law.

 

ERIC N. ASSOULINE, ESQ.

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MIAMI ADDRESS

Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131

 Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Intellectual Property

LABOR LAW Update – 11th Circuit Clarifies Liquidated Damages Awards in FLSA Cases

11th Circuit Seal

In the case of Davila v. Menendez, decided on June 10, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which controls all federal courts in Florida, clarified the respective roles of the jury and the district court in deciding issues relevant to claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims.

In the Davila case, the trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of the defendant employer on the issue of intentional, reckless or willful behavior, thus precluding an award of liquidated (double compensatory) damages.  The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury was first required to decide whether the defendant willfully violated the FLSA before the court could rule on liquidated damages.

The Eleventh Circuit agreed and held that the district court erred when it entered judgment as a matter of law that the defendant did not violate FLSA.  The appellate court clarified that the district court was required to await the finding of the jury as to whether the defendant willfully or in good faith violated the law before assessing liquidated damages.  The court further noted that a jury’s finding of willfulness will establish both the period of limitations (willful violations of FLSA allow for a three-year look back period whereas non-willful violations allow only a two-year look back) and the propriety of liquidated damages.  A jury’s finding of willfulness mandates liquidated damages whereas a non-willful finding leaves the question of liquidated damages to the district court’s discretion.

Davila v. Menendez, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2460199 (C.A.11 (Fla.)).

For more information on any labor or employment issues, please call

Labor & Employment Partner Ellen Leibovitch.

For more information on Mrs. Leibovitch’s practice, go to: http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/Ellen_Leibovitch.asp or you can contact her by e-mail at eml@assoulineberlowe.com

Assouline & Berlowe is a full service business law firm with offices in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and Boca Raton.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

Miami: 305-567-5576

Ft. Lauderdale: 965-929-1899

Boca Raton: 561-361-6566

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Labor & Employment